‘TO ACHIEVE PEACE IN UKRAINE WE MUST FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS HISTORY’

BY: 

DAVID CAMPBELL BANNERMAN
(BRITISH MEP 2009-19; SERVING ON
SECURITY AND DEFENCE COMMITTEE OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT; UK
GOVERNMENT SPECIAL ADVISER ON NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE PROCESS 1996-97)

Sitting at the Harbourside in Crimea in a Scottish restaurant I was unconvinced the
‘Aberdeen angus’ steak had ever reaped the benefit of Highlands grass, but the pro-
Burns sentiment was genuine. This was in happier times - the early 2000s - when
visiting Crimea with my Ukrainian art dealer partner Tamara. Yalta was once a
playground for the Soviet regime, and it was in former Tsarist Palaces here in
February 1945 that Stalin forced Churchill and Roosevelt to give Poland away.
Right next to the restaurant was an original and shiny statue of Lenin; similar to
those in Kyiv which were torn down in the Maidan revolt of 2013-14. Compared to
the intelligent, cultured, Europeanised Kyiv, I found the Crimea rougher, cruder and
ruder. Very Russian in feel. There were still Soviet-style massive hotels built to give
perks to the party faithful. Crimea was a playground for the Russian elite – rare
Russian warm waters favoured by apparatchiks for their dachas – and Chekhov and
Tolstoy before that. It was here also that Gorbachev heard on the BBC that he had
been deposed.
Visiting Sevastopol was more bizarre still. It was created as a major base for the
navy and the Black Sea fleet after 1783 at the direction of Catherine the Great. Her
initiative, implemented by the Scottish-Russian founder of the Royal Navy, Thomas
MacKenzie, followed the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-74. It was of course the area of
main engagement in the Crimean War (1854-56). Like many Russian military and
industrial installations, it was a closed city, and one could be executed for visiting
without permission.
But in those more relaxed days of the early 21 st century, Russian sailors waved for us
to visit and tour their ships – for dollars. Lingering in their midst has survived
Goering’s former yacht – once a World War Two destroyer. In the distance, right
across the Sevastopol Bay, was the Ukrainian fleet of warships at rest. It was an
odd, unreal arrangement then and a tragic one now with many of these Russian
ships sunk, some by British Storm Shadow missiles.
The Diorama here is well done and brings the Crimean War to life – mixing real
figures, guns and icons with the French depicted attacking the ramparts and the
British a far-off scarlet blur. Inkerman is nearby and Balaclava now a yachting
harbour with Cornish-style buildings sitting next to hidden former Russian submarine
pens, worthy of James Bond.
In the hills at Sapun Mount is a tank museum of 100 plus historic tanks, complete
with a Georgian chapel flying the familiar St George’s Flag which England shares. It
looks down into the valley that became the ‘Valley of the Death’, where the Charge of
the Light Brigade cavalry were cut down charging at the Russian guns. These tanks
defended Sevastopol in the grim German siege here in 1941-42 and liberation came
in 1944. When I was there, German tourists from coaches were busily buying fruit
from stands where the Crimean guns stood.
Only when I first visited Kyiv did I begin to understand that Ukraine is not some
adjunct of Russia, but its spiritual home. The Slavic culture of Russia comes from
Ukraine: Kyiv is 1,000 years older that Moscow and Kyiv was a Slavic trading settlement

before its capture by the Viking Varangians in the mid-ninth century. I
used to think that the beautiful city of St Petersburg, which I have also visited, was a
symbol of Russia and its Europeanism. In reality it is an aberration – Russia is
primarily Slavik, not European, and thinks that way. It is St Petersburg which is the
odd one out.
Kyiv (Kiev translated from the Russian) became the centre of the Kievian Rus – the
first East Slavic state; and this model, now represented by parts of Russia,
Belorussia and Ukraine, has been a delusionary, retrograde inspiration for Putin,
perhaps even more so than recreating the Soviet Union, which Gorbachev found
ridiculous. It was ‘good Vlad’, ‘Vladimir the Great’, a Saint, after all who converted
here from paganism to Orthodox Christianity and spread Christianity from the 980s
onwards. Putin has now made an extraordinary pact with the Russian Orthodox
church, in effect co-opting it for the state. Putin may in contrast be ‘Vladi the Baddie’
as an RAF technician puts it on the excellent Top Guns RAF, but he is actually coldly
rational in the manner of a hard KGB spy, but is not a Stalin.
Ukraine is full of stunning golden-topped Cathedrals – many rebuilt after Stalin
dynamited the originals; though St Sophia’s Cathedral (founded in 1011) dates from
before our Norman Conquest - was narrowly spared. The Rus peoples were
Norsemen, originating mostly from Sweden, and the Vikings too.
Then there was the complexity where some Ukrainians fought with Nazi Germany in
the Second World War, and several of its units were on a par with the SS; but Putin’s
exaggerated claims of Nazism being rife now are risible – modern Ukrainians are not
in the Nazi camp; and indeed has a Jewish President in Zelensky. But why did
Ukraine then back Hitler?
Well history again – because Stalin had discovered that mass starvation and
enforced collectivisation were cheap ways to kill millions and thus stem Ukrainian
independence. Millions died in the Holodomor (Ukrainian famine) of 1933-34 (as
exposed by the Welsh Times journalist Gareth Jones who was murdered in China in
1935 for doing so). So, rather a Hobsons’ choice for the poor Ukrainians in World
War Two; with Germany offering the chance of freedom from Stalin’s destruction and
oppression. As Danny Finklestein of The Times reports, his parents were oppressed
by the Soviets in Odessa not by the Nazis.
There is familiar debate too over the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine. The Russian
Federation currently has 46 internationally recognised ‘Oblasts’, that are
administrative regions, with Moscow being over 13 million people (21.5 million in its
metropolitan area), but many are much smaller.
In 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union transferred the
Crimean Oblast from the Russian SFSR (Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) to the
Ukrainian SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), recognising "close ties”, and
commemorating the Union of Russia and Ukraine Tercentenary. This must have
been representative, but it was, to be clear, a transfer of an administrative region
within the Soviet Union. The theory behind the transfer includes Harvard Professor of
the Cold War Mark Karner who maintains the transfer was partly to bolster

Khrushchev’s position – as he needed support of First Secretary of the Communist
Party of Ukraine, Oleksiy Krychenko in the face of the threat to him from Prime
Minister Georgii Malenkov. Being born just 7 miles from the border of Ukraine in
Kalinovka may have influenced his thinking too.
Whilst in Kyiv I visited the Afghanistan war memorial. Outside are Hind helicopters
and armoured cars that we trained the Taliban to take out with our missiles. The
walls here are full of the pictures of fallen young men from the Soviet Union’s Afghan
War of 1979-89 (‘Russia’s Vietnam’). A veteran, surprised by my presence, urged me
to take photographs. The Soviets preferred to use Ukrainians to fight there as
Ukraine was considered more trustworthy that their Muslim ‘stans’.
When Ukraine became a sovereign nation on 24th August 1991 with the Supreme
Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR declaring independence from the Soviet Union;
confirmed in a referendum on 1st December 1991. This new joyful free status
became a serious complication; though the naval base at Sevastopol was
specifically excluded – it is recognised as a city with special status under the
Ukrainian constitution; one of two including Kiev.
Sevastopol was occupied by Russia on 27th February 2014 and Crimea was
annexed on 18th March 2014. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a de jure
administrative division of Ukraine, with its own constitution, prime minister and
parliament – this was then turned into the Russian Republic of Crimea, but excluding
Sevastopol, using the same boundaries as in 2014. Russian annexation is clearly not
internationally recognised. World recognition for Russian control of Crimea is likely to
be at the heart of any proposed peace deal on Ukraine as a central Putin demand.
On nuclear weapons, Ukraine sought to court favour internationally by voluntarily
giving up its nuclear weapons. Its clever and technologically-minded people did
much to design such missiles. The Budapest Memorandum signed on 5th December
1994 provided security assurances on Ukraine’s accession to the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), originally signed by Ukraine, USA, Russia,
France and China as nuclear powers. Ukraine then gave up its nuclear weapons in
the period to 1996, as did Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Until Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in the period 1993 to 1996
under the Budapest Accords Memorandum, it had the third largest nuclear stockpile.
Would Ukraine have been able to use its nuclear arsenal to deter the Russian
invasion in 2022? It does seem it would be suicidal to have done so. The price to
Russia though of breaching these accords by using military forces was met from
2014 by limited financial and military assistance from the West and by economic
sanctions.
What does history conclude over the ‘Orange Revolution’ from November 2004 to
January 2005, which involved a series of protests following rigging claims of the
Presidential election between Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, who was
accused of doing the rigging? This result was annulled and a second closely-
observed ‘free and fair’ vote was forced by the Supreme Court for 26th December
2004 and Yushchenko then won. Later, in the 2010 Presidential Election,Yanukovych

returned to win, beating Yulia Tymoshenko, and that election was
judged to be fair by international observers. He stood on the basis of economic
modernisation, closer economic ties with EU – and, importantly, military non-
alignment.
I believe the EU is to blame for the fallout from ‘Euromaidan’ – the Maidan Uprising
that began on 21st November 2013, which involved attempts by security services to
kill and deter protestors. It was named after Kiev’s (Kyiv) Independence Square -
Maidan Nezalezhnosti - which was where the protests took place and seemed to me
to resemble a theatre set. As the EU did over Yugoslavia, its interference and
agenda to look more important on the world stage and acting as a ‘form of Empire’
(as former Commission Head Manuel Barroso put it) is a threat not a blessing for
Europe as a whole. Ukraine is a big piece on its Imperialistic playing board; but so is
it – wrongly – on Putin’s and Washington’s board. The result has been a wrestling
match between the Bear and the Eagle. I am told the CIA quietly funded food and
drink tents amongst EU and other rivals at home and abroad, to keep protestors on
the streets: The Bear and the Eagle in a struggle through proxies.
It should be acknowledged it was the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement that
dangerously raised the temperature between Russia and Ukraine – whilst not
excusing in any way the invasion of Ukraine, which was entirely unjustified. Such is
the messy reality of Ukrainian politics.
But the facts are that this EU push not just for trade and friendly links, but security
and defence co-operation, including Ukraine joining the European Defence Agency
was a red rag to Moscow. This action led directly to a constitutional crisis in Ukraine
with the parliament (Verkhovna Rada) backing joining the EU’s defence alignment
proposals and the elected President Yanukovich – who was more Russian leaning -
and refused to sign the agreement under threat of Russian tariffs on Ukrainian
goods. He was then deposed under the Maidan revolt / overthrow called the
‘Revolution of Dignity’. He left Kyiv on the night of 21 st February, the day before the
Parliament voted to remove him. His Prime Minister Mykola Azarov was also
replaced, on 27th February 2014. There was a push to return to the 2004
Constitution where the Parliament had more power.
Whilst the [Euro]Maidan was celebrated by the West as a sort of Glorious
Revolution, it then led directly to the start of the partitioning of Ukraine – with open
low-key warfare commencing in 2014 to the East, in the Donetsk area, now invaded,
and then to the Russian annexation of Crimea. This is an example of where EU and
Western diplomacy may have had noble ends but had the subtlety of hob-nailed
boots in a minefield.
Back in 2010 I warned in the European Parliament: “any talk of Ukraine joining NATO
would be a sharp kick to the Russian Bear. A clumsy diplomatic approach by
Baroness Ashton (then EU Foreign Minister, never elected for anything, and formerly
a CND Treasurer in the UK) could exacerbate tensions at a difficult time, whilst the
cost of forcing Ukraine into the EU in terms of farming subsidies, regional aid and
mass migration would be prohibitive. Better to help in other ways and keep Ukraine
as a proud, independent, non-EU nation.”

Then in late February 2022 Russia stunned the world by doing the unthinkable – a
full-scale military invasion of Ukraine. Putin abandoned his reputation for caution and
was reckless. A wholly unjustified action but a yet tragically predictable
consequence of mishandling Russia and failing to fully understand Ukrainian history.
The EU did the same with Yugoslavia. In the city hall in Sarajevo, built by the
Austrians in striking Moorish architecture, wrecked in the 1990s war, then rebuilt as a
museum; a little sign explains how the EU’s call for a Referendum to decide which
religious group should run Sarajevo was the trigger for the whole messy blood-
soaked siege.
I have always been pro Ukraine – I collected some of its art through Tamara. I helped
bring an Ukrainian art exhibition to the European Parliament and had to have a sharp
word with Eurofederalist Guy Verhofstadt for refusing to remove ALDE (Lib Dem
group) posters that got in the way – I think I was then being far more supportive of
Ukraine than federalists.
There is no doubt of the bravery, courage, grace and determination of Ukrainian
people – they have earned and consolidated their nationhood by keeping far superior
Russian forces at bay from invading. It was wonderful to see the Ukrainian flags
flying all over Britain such as the large Church in Portsmouth near where the Royal
Navy sails off to war. I fully support Ukraine’s desire for a European future and
independence from Russian influence.
But understanding the complexity and depth of Ukraine’s history and culture must be
at the centre of any peace deal, and educate that deal.
I am appalled at the black and white false certainties applied to Ukraine by those
seemingly intent on keeping Ukraine fighting and draining its blood and treasure for
the good of Europe. The reality is that Ukraine has been the winner to date: it
stopped Putin taking Kyiv; it has imposed a shocking price on the Russians in terms
of 100,000s of lost lives, and hit on the economy; and has retaken much lost
territories and even some Russian land.
There is too much talk of Hitler and Chamberlain – such as from Polish Foreign
Minister Sikorski and similarly from a former UK defence minister – who did a brilliant
and inspired job in bolstering Ukraine before the invasion, but is now being a strong
voice for continued warfare with European troops - and remember he was an open
EU Remainer.
I will never be an appeaser – I would have been right behind Churchill to attack
Chamberlain, but I am a pragmatist too, and I was at the heart of a peace process –
standing behind John Major and John Bruton when the Northern Ireland peace talks
started and proposing the critical form of decommissioning terrorist weapons that
saw them being destroyed - but in a pragmatic way with religious leaders witnessing
the destruction, not perceived of as being a surrender, but saving lives.
In my view there has been too much bellicose, aggressive military talk on the
European side, and even from some British generals, when the sad reality is we
don’t even have a British army - we have two corps (70,000) - and struggle to raise a

peace force, let alone a fighting force. Compare this to the fact the Roman Emperor
Severus dispatched a force of 50,000 in 209AD from York to invade Scotland at a
time when the population of the British Isles was thought to be around 2 or 3 million.
It seems the smaller the army we have, the more exaggerated the desire to fight a
bigger war. That shouldn’t be where we are – we must bolster defence - but that is
the reality.
OK, Trump certainly does not follow the usual diplomatic waltz invented by the
French of accords and communiques and charges d’affairs. No, this is a New York
Property Dealer/Apprentice TV show star deal making. It might be brutal at times -
and I winced at the treatment of Zelensky in the White House - but it this abrasive
business-like approach has been 100% effective so far – Mexico and the Border,
Panama and the Canal for starters, according to his publicly available objectives.
But what actually is the alternative to a Trump-brokered peace deal? That Europe
proves how important it is in the world, like an insecure Napoleon, by sending
hundreds of thousands of European troops to drive out the Russians? To continue
the relentless stalemate and meat grinder attrition there. Even if achievable
theoretically, at huge cost in lives, what would a wounded Putin do next? Lob some
nuclear weapons? We didn’t believe he’d invade Ukraine. Trump is right to warn of a
Third World War. We would be inviting a very dangerous, and avoidable accident.
If the EU does splurge 800 billion euros on defence to do this, it will go bust. The
European Central Bank (ECB) already has negative capital and is unable to support
the Euro – remove the certainly of the German Economic Brake though prolific
spending and the whole EU house will come crashing down.
If the war continues, Ukraine might not just be worn down. Its resistance might
collapse altogether. As Trump says: Ukraine doesn’t have the cards. I fear that
Ukraine is now firmly on the back foot.
Kyiv Independent reported on 27th January that the head of Ukraine’s Military
Intelligence (HUR) Kyrylo Budanov allegedly “predicted serious consequences for
the existence of Ukraine unless negotiations begin by the summer”. Further,
Ukrainska Pravda quoted an undisclosed source revealing Budanov allegedly said “If
there are no serious negotiations by the summer, then very dangerous processes for
the very existence of Ukraine may begin,"
If the situation is becoming grim for Ukraine, is this ‘Coalition of the Willing’ European
army the answer (which sounds in like the same diplomatic lingo that gave us ‘Peace
in Our Time’)? I don’t think so.
Let’s not let the EU hijack this opportunity to complete their dangerous Superstate.
They are relishing this and see it as a virility test - with the slippery Macron dashing
around the world and so literally handholding Trump, and the unelected EU
President Von Der Leyen, who reduced parts of the German Army to carrying
broomsticks such was the dire spend on defence under her as Defence Minister.
Now they are warmongers keen to send in European armies to combat Russia.

See what Starmer was trying to do with his (unnecessary) EU ‘reset’ on defence and
security. The EU is actually more hostile to NATO than Trump is meant to be. They
have been busy undermining and duplicating NATO for years. I saw this first hand
when serving on the security and defence committee visiting British Military
Headquarters at Northwood near London – the EU’s counter piracy EUNavfor was
literally 100 yards walk from NATO’s own Ocean Shield counter piracy operation.
Duplication and competition are their watchwords.
Often the same European ships were moved from one flag to the other. But the EU
has not spent money on defence – France and UK were only serious defence
powers in the EU, now Poland and Germany are belatedly stepping up. They are the
source of claims Trump is binning NATO and of ridiculous claims such as F-35 US
built jets having ‘kill switches’ – that is to benefit rival EU defence providers.
Why does a free trade block need an army? This is a giveaway of the EU’s
Superstate intentions. Europe doesn’t need a rival, undermining and weaker force it
needs to bolster the European contribution to NATO – there are 46 nations in Europe
(Russia and Belorussia are out of the Council of Europe now) including the major
forces of Turkey, but only 27 are in EU.
It is the United Nations who should be spearheading peacekeeping troops, as they
have done all over the world, not the European Union and Starmer – putting
European troops who have been indirectly assisting Ukraine in killing Russians right
in the face of the Russians in a volatile area (as opposed to say Estonia and
Romania, clearly recognised to be part of NATO-protected alliance and which British
jets and troops are rightly defending now) – how tempting it would be to exact
revenge on us: for the NGAW tank stopping missiles, Storm Shadow ship sinkers
and vital intelligence provision? Could this be Starmer’s Iraq War?
So, I believe we must play the long game, make a peace deal when Ukraine is
ahead, and when we have President Trump with the personal focus and
determination and investment devoted to delivering a deal. Who else can force Putin
to the table? Putin actually made a rare apology – for Russian missiles shooting
down an Azerbaijan airliner – before Trump even sat back behind the Oval office’s
Resolute desk. Trump’s unpredictability is a weapon as it keeps foes and friends
alike off balance and guessing.
People wrongly label Trump as stupid when in reality he is often three or four steps
ahead. Love him or hate him, he is a deal maker with a businessman’s approach.
Let’s not forget, Trump started this peace-making dance with significant threats to
Russia – with sanctions, action over Russia’s shadow fleet, and arming Ukraine –
before then then calling out the Europeans on defence and pressurising Zelensky.
So, my plea is – give him space, give him the benefit of the doubt, study his adviser
Kellogg’s clever strategy which echoes what is happening, cut out these nasty anti-
American elitist comments worthy of core EU figures not of Brexiteers. We do not
want to play straight into the arms of the EU superstate, who are relishing this
opportunity to demean and rival the USA. It may not work; in which case the war will 

continue and hundreds of thousands more lives will be sacrificed, and I am sure he
will ramp up sanctions and provide weapons, but to what end?
Just for the record and factual accuracy: Trump has NOT said he is leaving NATO;
nor is he tearing up NATO as many panicky commentators maintain - he just wants
every NATO member to honour the pledge they made to put in a minimum of 2%
GDP during the last Trump administration, now, quite rightly, a 3% base. He is just
using the notion of leaving NATO, or not defending under-contributing nations, as a
way to secure that aim.
Again, see this as a domestic DOGE-like move, driven by domestic agenda. America
First is the overriding slogan: translated as being fair to US taxpayers – no more
‘freeriding’ by Europe on the back of US taxpayers and its military. That is not an
unreasonable position – many Americans remain poor and pay taxes.
Nor is Trump a friend of Putin just because he has reached out to Putin. A smirking
BBC News have seemed to enjoy peace talks facing obstacles as they are so anti
Trump. Trump is not a friend of Kim Jung Yin either because he reached out to him
last time. But he is a peacemaker Trump – as Rubio has made clear in Saudi Arabia,
and not cynically because he wants the Nobel Peace Prize as Left-wing snobby
commentators scoff.
Remember, he has been the only President in decades not to take the USA and
West into major wars – like Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Vietnam etc. I remember that
when the US was preparing to attack Iran in his last term he asked how many would
die – was told around 300 – and he vetoed the attack to save lives; but did act
selectively and decisively – critically to take out the Iranian master terrorist planner
Solmeini – a clinical and vital strike.
I fully agree that in ‘normal times’ the USA abandoning the West and voting with
Russia and North Korea in the United Nations blaming Russia for invading Ukraine
would normally and rightly cause an apoplexy in the West, but this must be seen as
a feature of deal making and in bringing Putin in from the cold.
Nor is Musk removing Starlink support for Ukraine, as reported; and Trump has
quickly restored intelligence sharing that is vital to defensive air defences from
Ukraine.
Finally, where do I think we may end up? What kind of ‘peace deal’ is likely?
It should be noted peace negotiations started almost immediately after the invasion:
The first meeting between Russian and Ukrainian officials took place four days after
the invasion began, on 28 February 2022, in Belarus, and concluded without result.
Previous negotiations held in Turkey included Ukraine abandoning plans to join
NATO, have military limits, with security guarantees from Western countries and not
being required to recognize Russian ownership of Crimea. Apparently, this draft
treaty was nearly agreed but fell due to uncertainty over security guarantees and in
reaction to the appalling Bucha massacre.

I can see a peace deal originating around rather a lot of Bismarckian ‘Realpolitik’. I
know senior people in Ukraine who are prepared to compromise. They are not
appeasers;
 Ukraine recognised as an independent free sovereign nation state. This would
be a big win for Ukraine and the hardest thing for Putin to accept; so is one
that may need security guarantees. Russia would have to fear significant
military damage and losses from breaching this agreement; quite separate
and on a much more serious level than UN-style peacekeeping forces. Do this
and Putin is not the victor;
 Sanctions against Russia to be eased - Russia’s economy is being deeply
hurt by sanctions – it doesn’t actually produce much beyond oil and gas – and
Trump has threatened to ramp these up in anger at Putin playing for time;
 Russia to formally retain Crimea – as history shows, it should never have
gone to Ukraine as an independent country - the transfer was administrative
within the Soviet Union; which only when Ukraine rightly broke away did the
issue become dramatised. He might have his de facto hold on Crimea
recognised, but frankly – as explained - there is a strong historical Russian
claim there, and Crimea has always been treated differently and semi-
autonomously;
 Occupied areas in Eastern Ukraine to be returned in part but with some
remaining Ukrainian but subject to de facto Russian control. Reviewable after
certain period. Again, there is historical complexity here: Russian speaking
areas of Ukraine – mainly to the East – are not necessarily wanting to join
Russia, many are strongly opposed; so allowing Russia to retain Russian
speaking areas of Ukraine is not a neat solution. Such an arrangement must
recognise Putin won’t last forever – he has already extended his term of office
as far as it can go, and he is reportedly obsessed with videos of Gaddafi’s
execution by crowds of his own people. The Greek Cypriots have not
renounced their claim to sovereignty of Northern Cyprus despite de facto
Turkish control through an invasion in 1974; and a UN-patrolled Green Line
border – only Turkey recognises it as Turkish.
 If he goes, the personal affection for a return of the Soviet Union may well go
with him. The return of large number of soldiers from the front after a peace
deal may also well expose the reality of the war and cost to the Russian
people for the first time;
 Some form of mineral deal with Ukraine – on first sight this looks to be
colonialist in its intent – but Trump I suspect sees all this, as with Greenland,
as taking on China geopolitically over resources. But there is a deeper angle:
having Americans on the ground in Ukraine will keep the USA bound in to a
stable and long-lasting peace solution and that’s positive for all.

 All of Kursk, invaded in part by Ukraine, to be returned to Russia. This has de
facto happened already with Ukrainian troops pulling back. It was always a
negotiating card;
 Ukraine may join the EU if it wishes but does not join NATO. This seems a
clear ask from Putin and is a move likely to reduce tensions; he was always
more relaxed about trade and EU membership but not military aspects. Would
the USA agree to veto any application attempt – for NATO membership needs
unanimity?
 Major prisoner swaps; primarily of captured troops;
 Some form of ‘Marshall Plan’ to rebuild Ukraine; and paid from levies on
Russian gas/oil or frozen national assets. No doubt the EU will seek to offer
financial assistance along pre-accession lines. British engineers should have
a good share of such reconstruction.
In conclusion, the Ukrainian situation is very complex and is intertwined with the
deep and close history of both Ukraine and Russia. People trying to adopt simple
parallels are often ignorant of that history and do not serve anyone well. Putin was
wrong to invade, but the handling of the Russian bear was criminally negligent and
belligerent. We are in a bad place which only Realpolitik can address. But an
honourable peace deal is possible – even if it is a holding peace, perhaps
reminiscent of some Cold War holding positions or of Cyprus, before a more
comprehensive deal may follow once Putin is out of the equation. But hundreds of
thousands or more lives are in the balance, and President Trump deserves our
support in trying for this noble aim.

ENDS